Worrying precedent in the British media
12 November 2011, 01:58 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worrying precedent in the British media
It is over a week ago now but the offices of a French satirical newspaper were attached by Islamic activists because they published a satirical piece about the success of Islamist parties in the recent Tunisian elections. This piece featured among other things a cartoon of the Prophet on the front.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15550350
Sky news did a 5 min thing on this and in doing so they chose to show the newspaper cover....BUT they pixalated it out.
My issue is that this seemingly voluntarily self-censorship under the pretext of 'not causing offense', is in fact a VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE WITH SHARIA.
You may ask why a secular media organisation in a non-muslim country is choosing to follow sharia law. It's a legitimate question. Why? Fear of violence? Fear of condemnation by liberal elites?
It seems that protecting muslim honor - which sees to be in this case a duty for non-muslims to follow one aspect of sharia law - trumps freedom of speech?
I would argue that this precedent and general attitude is in no way a good thing, it jeopardises democracy and liberal values. 'Honor/shame' has no place in a civil society where we have a duty to self-criticism.
Publishing a cartoon of the Prophet in no way harms Muslims directly or indirectly, there is no reason for them to be 'outraged' unless they see it as Islams right to enforce its own rules on unbelievers.
I would put it - perhaps controversially - that the 'cartoon controversies' is perhaps evidence of Islams expansive, and intractable nature.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15550350
Sky news did a 5 min thing on this and in doing so they chose to show the newspaper cover....BUT they pixalated it out.
My issue is that this seemingly voluntarily self-censorship under the pretext of 'not causing offense', is in fact a VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE WITH SHARIA.
You may ask why a secular media organisation in a non-muslim country is choosing to follow sharia law. It's a legitimate question. Why? Fear of violence? Fear of condemnation by liberal elites?
It seems that protecting muslim honor - which sees to be in this case a duty for non-muslims to follow one aspect of sharia law - trumps freedom of speech?
I would argue that this precedent and general attitude is in no way a good thing, it jeopardises democracy and liberal values. 'Honor/shame' has no place in a civil society where we have a duty to self-criticism.
Publishing a cartoon of the Prophet in no way harms Muslims directly or indirectly, there is no reason for them to be 'outraged' unless they see it as Islams right to enforce its own rules on unbelievers.
I would put it - perhaps controversially - that the 'cartoon controversies' is perhaps evidence of Islams expansive, and intractable nature.
12 November 2011, 05:42 PM
#7
It is over a week ago now but the offices of a French satirical newspaper were attached by Islamic activists because they published a satirical piece about the success of Islamist parties in the recent Tunisian elections. This piece featured among other things a cartoon of the Prophet on the front.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15550350
Sky news did a 5 min thing on this and in doing so they chose to show the newspaper cover....BUT they pixalated it out.
My issue is that this seemingly voluntarily self-censorship under the pretext of 'not causing offense', is in fact a VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE WITH SHARIA.
You may ask why a secular media organisation in a non-muslim country is choosing to follow sharia law. It's a legitimate question. Why? Fear of violence? Fear of condemnation by liberal elites?
It seems that protecting muslim honor - which sees to be in this case a duty for non-muslims to follow one aspect of sharia law - trumps freedom of speech?
I would argue that this precedent and general attitude is in no way a good thing, it jeopardises democracy and liberal values. 'Honor/shame' has no place in a civil society where we have a duty to self-criticism.
Publishing a cartoon of the Prophet in no way harms Muslims directly or indirectly, there is no reason for them to be 'outraged' unless they see it as Islams right to enforce its own rules on unbelievers.
I would put it - perhaps controversially - that the 'cartoon controversies' is perhaps evidence of Islams expansive, and intractable nature.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15550350
Sky news did a 5 min thing on this and in doing so they chose to show the newspaper cover....BUT they pixalated it out.
My issue is that this seemingly voluntarily self-censorship under the pretext of 'not causing offense', is in fact a VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE WITH SHARIA.
You may ask why a secular media organisation in a non-muslim country is choosing to follow sharia law. It's a legitimate question. Why? Fear of violence? Fear of condemnation by liberal elites?
It seems that protecting muslim honor - which sees to be in this case a duty for non-muslims to follow one aspect of sharia law - trumps freedom of speech?
I would argue that this precedent and general attitude is in no way a good thing, it jeopardises democracy and liberal values. 'Honor/shame' has no place in a civil society where we have a duty to self-criticism.
Publishing a cartoon of the Prophet in no way harms Muslims directly or indirectly, there is no reason for them to be 'outraged' unless they see it as Islams right to enforce its own rules on unbelievers.
I would put it - perhaps controversially - that the 'cartoon controversies' is perhaps evidence of Islams expansive, and intractable nature.
Trending Topics
12 November 2011, 08:27 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somebody firebombed the offices of a satirical magazine for printing a cartoon and they were right to do that. Our media houses are trembling, they know the consequences, a lesson learnt not just from this episode, of course. Let us not forget the Danish incident where the very same spineless organisations failed their significantly braver colleagues after a call for defiant solidarity. I say well done to the firebombers and hard luck to western mainstream media, because the former is winning the ideological battle. They had the courage of their convictions.
Tony, you're right and history will prove you so. Alas, a sense of vindication will be scant reward.
Tony, you're right and history will prove you so. Alas, a sense of vindication will be scant reward.
Last edited by JTaylor; 12 November 2011 at 08:42 PM.
13 November 2011, 06:07 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep exactly, to be more specific they are a form of racist defamation in the form of a cartoon. It is not Jewish people being drawn as cartoon which would be the problem but what the cartoon 'say' in picture form.
Banny is just wrong to conflate a cartoon of Mohammed per se with these anti-Semitic cartoons.
Banny is just wrong to conflate a cartoon of Mohammed per se with these anti-Semitic cartoons.
13 November 2011, 06:16 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somebody firebombed the offices of a satirical magazine for printing a cartoon and they were right to do that. Our media houses are trembling, they know the consequences, a lesson learnt not just from this episode, of course. Let us not forget the Danish incident where the very same spineless organisations failed their significantly braver colleagues after a call for defiant solidarity. I say well done to the firebombers and hard luck to western mainstream media, because the former is winning the ideological battle. They had the courage of their convictions.
Tony, you're right and history will prove you so. Alas, a sense of vindication will be scant reward.
Tony, you're right and history will prove you so. Alas, a sense of vindication will be scant reward.
Sky also gave airtime to this French Muslim women who spun a narrative of French Muslim victimization, the paper was making a 'racist' attack, Muslims are so discriminated against in France etc. Sky gave no opposing view and as I said pixxalated out the depiction of Mohammed. All this explicitly and implicitly says is that the paper was wrong in some way and is 'attacking' Muslim honor which is something we should - rightly - protect even if it means sacrificing our freedoms.
It's a narrative of Muslim victimhood when the truth is that it is about Islamic expansionism.
Nobody questioned why non-muslims should follow a principle of sharia in a non-muslim country.
13 November 2011, 09:37 AM
#17
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep exactly, to be more specific they are a form of racist defamation in the form of a cartoon. It is not Jewish people being drawn as cartoon which would be the problem but what the cartoon 'say' in picture form.
Banny is just wrong to conflate a cartoon of Mohammed per se with these anti-Semitic cartoons.
Banny is just wrong to conflate a cartoon of Mohammed per se with these anti-Semitic cartoons.
13 November 2011, 09:56 AM
#18
Yep exactly, to be more specific they are a form of racist defamation in the form of a cartoon. It is not Jewish people being drawn as cartoon which would be the problem but what the cartoon 'say' in picture form.
Banny is just wrong to conflate a cartoon of Mohammed per se with these anti-Semitic cartoons.
Banny is just wrong to conflate a cartoon of Mohammed per se with these anti-Semitic cartoons.
13 November 2011, 10:38 AM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes we even had Politicians such as Jack Straw 'condemning' the Danish cartoon when they were published. I couldn't believe what I was seeing from the British establishment.
Sky also gave airtime to this French Muslim women who spun a narrative of French Muslim victimization, the paper was making a 'racist' attack, Muslims are so discriminated against in France etc. Sky gave no opposing view and as I said pixxalated out the depiction of Mohammed. All this explicitly and implicitly says is that the paper was wrong in some way and is 'attacking' Muslim honor which is something we should - rightly - protect even if it means sacrificing our freedoms.
It's a narrative of Muslim victimhood when the truth is that it is about Islamic expansionism.
Nobody questioned why non-muslims should follow a principle of sharia in a non-muslim country.
Sky also gave airtime to this French Muslim women who spun a narrative of French Muslim victimization, the paper was making a 'racist' attack, Muslims are so discriminated against in France etc. Sky gave no opposing view and as I said pixxalated out the depiction of Mohammed. All this explicitly and implicitly says is that the paper was wrong in some way and is 'attacking' Muslim honor which is something we should - rightly - protect even if it means sacrificing our freedoms.
It's a narrative of Muslim victimhood when the truth is that it is about Islamic expansionism.
Nobody questioned why non-muslims should follow a principle of sharia in a non-muslim country.
Last edited by JTaylor; 13 November 2011 at 10:49 AM.
14 November 2011, 02:59 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is over a week ago now but the offices of a French satirical newspaper were attached by Islamic activists because they published a satirical piece about the success of Islamist parties in the recent Tunisian elections. This piece featured among other things a cartoon of the Prophet on the front.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15550350
Sky news did a 5 min thing on this and in doing so they chose to show the newspaper cover....BUT they pixalated it out.
My issue is that this seemingly voluntarily self-censorship under the pretext of 'not causing offense', is in fact a VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE WITH SHARIA.
You may ask why a secular media organisation in a non-muslim country is choosing to follow sharia law. It's a legitimate question. Why? Fear of violence? Fear of condemnation by liberal elites?
It seems that protecting muslim honor - which sees to be in this case a duty for non-muslims to follow one aspect of sharia law - trumps freedom of speech?
I would argue that this precedent and general attitude is in no way a good thing, it jeopardises democracy and liberal values. 'Honor/shame' has no place in a civil society where we have a duty to self-criticism.
Publishing a cartoon of the Prophet in no way harms Muslims directly or indirectly, there is no reason for them to be 'outraged' unless they see it as Islams right to enforce its own rules on unbelievers.
I would put it - perhaps controversially - that the 'cartoon controversies' is perhaps evidence of Islams expansive, and intractable nature.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15550350
Sky news did a 5 min thing on this and in doing so they chose to show the newspaper cover....BUT they pixalated it out.
My issue is that this seemingly voluntarily self-censorship under the pretext of 'not causing offense', is in fact a VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE WITH SHARIA.
You may ask why a secular media organisation in a non-muslim country is choosing to follow sharia law. It's a legitimate question. Why? Fear of violence? Fear of condemnation by liberal elites?
It seems that protecting muslim honor - which sees to be in this case a duty for non-muslims to follow one aspect of sharia law - trumps freedom of speech?
I would argue that this precedent and general attitude is in no way a good thing, it jeopardises democracy and liberal values. 'Honor/shame' has no place in a civil society where we have a duty to self-criticism.
Publishing a cartoon of the Prophet in no way harms Muslims directly or indirectly, there is no reason for them to be 'outraged' unless they see it as Islams right to enforce its own rules on unbelievers.
I would put it - perhaps controversially - that the 'cartoon controversies' is perhaps evidence of Islams expansive, and intractable nature.
Satirical publication as long as it is within the law of the land and is not unfairly offensive should be quite free, and Sharia law is not part of our own British culture and that should stay that way.
Les
14 November 2011, 07:16 PM
#23
Goading Muslims into a reaction is a stupid thing to do, they make it quite clear that they wont put up with it, I am not religious, I believe its all a load of old claptrap but I also believe in not being beheaded, blown up, firebombed or having an airliner flown into my place of work. Perhaps if we didn't go out of our way to **** off the fundamentalist and violent few then we might avoid this.
I have nothing against Muslims or anyone else who is religious but I don't want to practice it myself, passing interest in their celebrations and sensibilities so I don't offend but sometimes people need offending and we shouldn't be scared to speak out if we don't like something but actively trying to **** off people with such deep rooted beliefs is never going to go well, see how tribal blokes get about football, religion is worse.
I have nothing against Muslims or anyone else who is religious but I don't want to practice it myself, passing interest in their celebrations and sensibilities so I don't offend but sometimes people need offending and we shouldn't be scared to speak out if we don't like something but actively trying to **** off people with such deep rooted beliefs is never going to go well, see how tribal blokes get about football, religion is worse.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Pro-Line Motorsport
Car Parts For Sale
2
29 September 2015 07:36 PM
shorty87
Wheels And Tyres For Sale
0
29 September 2015 02:18 PM
